(06-04-2015, 09:28 AM)HES_Keith Wrote: Okay. This was a bad move by you.
Don't come on here and tell me I'm doing my job wrong.
We have specialists here at TruBlu that actually play and Ref Rugby Leauge, and it's their job to know the game back to front. The rest of us aren't programmers, we're testers, so it's our job to make sure that the game passes certification.
I'm not a Rugby Specialist, as Ross pointed out Earlier. I'm the social media guy, who also tests. I was describing my methods of testing as asked, and this does not reflect upon the skills or methods of the rest of the team.

(06-04-2015, 10:45 AM)Midnight Prowler Wrote: Easy tiger, i never said you were doing your job wrong, just stated an opinion based on my experience as a Test Professional. This is common place in what we call a "Discussion".

How Tru Blu and Big ant run their ships is completely up to them and whos to say its wrong or right. Proof is in the pudding really with the quality of product that ends up on the shelves.

I get enough people inboxing me on Facebook swearing at me, and telling me how bad BA and TB are, I don't need it on here and won't tolerate it in any degree from anyone
For future reference, Discussions are run with suggestions and not criticisms.

(06-04-2015, 10:45 AM)Midnight Prowler Wrote: Easy tiger, i never said you were doing your job wrong, just stated an opinion based on my experience as a Test Professional. This is common place in what we call a "Discussion".

How Tru Blu and Big ant run their ships is completely up to them and whos to say its wrong or right. Proof is in the pudding really with the quality of product that ends up on the shelves.

I get enough people inboxing me on Facebook swearing at me, and telling me how bad BA and TB are, I don't need it on here and won't tolerate it in any degree from anyone
For future reference, Discussions are run with suggestions and not criticisms.

Sorry but i'm still struggling to see the criticism. A difference of opinion yes, but not a criticism. However i can understand if your being attacked on other forums that you may have your defenses up looking for people having a go.

In my experience i have learnt not to judge any approach to Development/project work. I have worked on some projects that i thought were destined to crash and burn due to poor planning and implementation and was completely surprised at how smoothly their approach ended up being and the quality of the product they released.

(06-04-2015, 11:08 AM)Midnight Prowler Wrote: Sorry but i'm still struggling to see the criticism. A difference of opinion yes, but not a criticism. However i can understand if your being attacked on other forums that you may have your defenses up looking for people having a go.

In my experience i have learnt not to judge any approach to Development/project work. I have worked on some projects that i thought were destined to crash and burn due to poor planning and implementation and was completely surprised at how smoothly their approach ended up being and the quality of the product they released.

There are many ways to skin a cat as they say.

I'm not here to argue with you.
and yes, 98% of all 'fans' of the game seem to think that abusing us is going to result in them being rewarded in the product they want, regardless of if "[I] have [my] defenses up", that's a reflection of the people that interact with me, not a reflection of me.
Expect that if I don't take something kindly, you'll hear about it.

(06-04-2015, 11:09 AM)Ruck Wrote: I'd say they were two rather different jobs IMO.... Like Alpha vs. Beta testing. We're talking about Game Testing, not IT testing. I'd view Game Testing as a form of functional testing.

Agreed, It's apples and oranges really. I have to emulate the end users experience in playing the game. Our target market is surprisingly young NRL fans, who spectate and not necessarily know the rules back to front, with games being their only way to join in and play the game.
This being said, Not knowing is more useful then knowing.

(06-04-2015, 11:09 AM)Ruck Wrote: I'd say they were two rather different jobs IMO.... Like Alpha vs. Beta testing. We're talking about Game Testing, not IT testing. I'd view Game Testing as a form of functional testing.

Game testing and IT testing are the same thing, they both basically test the code of a software package against the design specifications/user requirements.

But it comes down to your terminology as well i guess.

Funcitonal testing for me is having the Design specs in front of me, and knowing if i do something, that the result will be (X) and if its not, you have a defect.

User Acceptance i guess is where i would put this kind of testing, which is more based around the Users experience while using the software.

But again it all comes down to your terminology which can vary from place to place.

(06-04-2015, 11:19 AM)Midnight Prowler Wrote: Game testing and IT testing are the same thing, they both basically test the code of a software package against the design specifications/user requirements.

But it comes down to your terminology as well i guess.

Functional testing for me is having the Design specs in front of me, and knowing if i do something, that the result will be (X) and if its not, you have a defect.

User Acceptance i guess is where i would put this kind of testing, which is more based around the Users experience while using the software.

But again it all comes down to your terminology which can vary from place to place.

From your description you have just proven beyond a doubt that it is completely different

1. Game testing and IT testing are the same thing, they both basically test the code of a software package against the design specifications/user requirements.

this is not how it function for us at all. We never interact with 'the code' we don't even get to see anything other then the current version of the game, in which we essentially plow through trying to break it, so that the breaks can be reported.

2.Functional testing for me is having the Design specs in front of me, and knowing if i do something, that the result will be (X) and if its not, you have a defect.

We never, ever get design specs. Hell we don't even get update notes 90% of the time. the process you describe is: If I press X this will happen. For us its: I pressed X, this happened. Is this designed as intended? Does this match a real NRL game? Does this affect gameplay?
Tl;Dr we never know, and have to literally triple check everything before we can even guess it's a problem (Short of crashes and such)

3.User Acceptance i guess is where i would put this kind of testing, which is more based around the Users experience while using the software.